|
On April 06 2010 09:02 JohannesH wrote:And I dont see any problem with the randomness. You know what the chances are for different things to happen, and have to take into account your units failing - your move is not good if you cant deal with bad luck with it. Unless youre behind and need some risk to catch up or such, of course. But randomity forces you to constantly improvise, which should very much favor a good clever player. http://ladder.subversiva.org/ Wessnoth ladder site
There are too many key elements involved to allow bad luck to cancel out over time/large numbers.
Bad luck in the early game can get you economically far behind resulting in a loss.
Bad luck can get your hero killed -> Loss.
Bad luck can block important hexes impeding your movement in key situations (hero blocked from reaching keep making you unable to recruit).
While there certainly are extremely skilled players that can overcome streaks of bad luck, you simply cannot plan for it.
If you play so save that no bad luck can really hurt you, you'll just fall behind economically and lose anyway. Also I'd make the claim that a general that assumes all his units will "fail" and plans accordingly, is a bad general.
That being said- I'm off playing the new campaign. 
|
This game is DEFINATELY not a luck based game
I used to play quite a fair amount of 1v1 as drakes, and a better play WILL roll you every single time
It is important to learn the common 1v1 maps very well (same importance as SC) as some strategies just wont work
Is gallifax still around? He was one of the very best players of this and i had some pretty epic games with him.
The game is extremely strategic and tactical and very, very complex. It can be an almost endless struggle to gain a good lead to push and win the game, and you often find yourself just cursing at players abusing the mechanics of their race (especially elves and dwarves)
|
did anyone ever finish the last campaign??
i rem playing this game a lot a18 month ago
damn the last campaign is impossible on medium level even
couldnt finish it although i was like 2 levels from the end
|
On April 12 2010 09:03 BrTarolg wrote:
This game is DEFINATELY not a luck based game
I used to play quite a fair amount of 1v1 as drakes, and a better play WILL roll you every single time
It is important to learn the common 1v1 maps very well (same importance as SC) as some strategies just wont work
Is gallifax still around? He was one of the very best players of this and i had some pretty epic games with him.
The game is extremely strategic and tactical and very, very complex. It can be an almost endless struggle to gain a good lead to push and win the game, and you often find yourself just cursing at players abusing the mechanics of their race (especially elves and dwarves)
You need to realize that there is a huge difference between "luck based" and "luck factor is strong enough that it can decide games".
No matter how good you are, you WILL lose (or win) games due to blatantly bad (good) luck (against equally skilled opponents, duh). That's not everyones cup of tea.
|
The newest release is pretty sweet of this. Anyone around still playing?
|
On April 12 2010 09:50 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 09:03 BrTarolg wrote:
This game is DEFINATELY not a luck based game
I used to play quite a fair amount of 1v1 as drakes, and a better play WILL roll you every single time
It is important to learn the common 1v1 maps very well (same importance as SC) as some strategies just wont work
Is gallifax still around? He was one of the very best players of this and i had some pretty epic games with him.
The game is extremely strategic and tactical and very, very complex. It can be an almost endless struggle to gain a good lead to push and win the game, and you often find yourself just cursing at players abusing the mechanics of their race (especially elves and dwarves) You need to realize that there is a huge difference between "luck based" and "luck factor is strong enough that it can decide games". No matter how good you are, you WILL lose (or win) games due to blatantly bad (good) luck (against equally skilled opponents, duh). That's not everyones cup of tea.
That will happen in RTS games too...
|
Luckily, I saw this thread, when it was up on the side bar last time.
I used to play lots of Age of Wonders I and some Heroes of M&M, Disciple and so on. I'm really a huge fan of those turn-based strategy games in a fantasy setting. So I checked Wesnoth out and I'm stunned. So much content for free is just astonishing.
I played through the first 4 campaignes on easy. On the HttT there are some really difficult levels, but some of the shorter campaigns were quite easy.
The game is easy to learn at first, but you realise soon, that it's quite hard to master. It's not too complex but has tons of depth at the same time.
I'm looking forward to experience all the campaigns and than some custom games. The AI is very challenging.
I'm so happy I saw this thread. Thanks TL
|
I'd love to play you on the server if you like.
|
I expect to get roflstomped, but hey, why not.
I have time today, as long as the game dont take much longer than 90 minutes or so, don't really know what do expect, didn't look at multiplayer maps so far.
You can PM me a time, and then I hope I can make it on the server, but I think it's not too difficult.
|
Just want to add that this game is Free Software, which means that you can copy it, share it, mod it, even release a game called "Besnoth" by copy and pasting it. It's FREE. This tends to build a strong community around the game, and actually most of the development is done by the community
If you want to participate in it you can. You can write code, draw art for it, testing things, but even just mentioning problems and gathering information about them already helps the community out.
|
On April 12 2010 08:26 Boblion wrote:
- Give fucking range to ranged units ffs.
The developers have stated multiple times that (a) this is a game by the developers for the developers, and (b) they are not interested in 2-hex ranged units - the balance issues would be enormous, and would fundamentally change the mechanics of the game.
On April 12 2010 08:26 Boblion wrote:
- Make riders really fast ... they arent really faster than infantry.
- Dont heal units when they level up. That ruined many battles for me and it isnt realistic at all.
- Change the hit system. That magic 70% attack isnt realistic at all and it lacks of complexity.
- Change healers abilities. The auto heal around the caster is retarded and imba. You should have to chose the unit you want to heal. Casters should be slightly more expensive and have many different spells with range and different effects ( it isnt fun to have a wizard who is like a melee unit + a 70% hit ratio )
Err, scouts are really fast. The elven scout almost doubles the movement of typical infantry units.
Healing while leveling up is a mechanic of the game that one needs to learn to compensate for and strategize around. Advanced multiplayer is all about learning how to manage the XP of your units, and get them leveled and healed.
Err... again you seem to be railing against a fundamental game mechanic. Magic with 70% attack chance is specifically designed to break siege warfare and defenses. Use them to attack villages, units fortified on castle, etc. Then protect those weak ass Magic users with infantry.
Auto-heal gives a complex depth to positioning that is important. This game is 100% all about positioning units.
On April 12 2010 08:26 Boblion wrote:
- Make units a bit more different. Their stats are often really close.
- Make level up a bit more interesting even if you have completed the unit progression tree ... because it become really boring after level 3.
Their stats being very close is all about game balance. It`s the same reason why Blizz will make tiny tweaks like adjusting build times from 25 seconds to 20 seconds.
As others have said, it`s all about multiplayer - you don`t get very many units at level 3 in multiplayer. In this respect Wesnoth is very much like SC. The really strong, skilled players excel in 1v1 and MP scenarios. These are the same players who will tear apart AI`s in singleplayer.
On April 12 2010 08:26 Boblion wrote:
- Make many more abilities for units + new kind of ground tiles ( a goldmine, some sort of buildings to recruit special units and so on ). A sapper unit able to build defenses would be awesome for example.
- give items for your hero ( he is just like a normal unit and i think it is lame )
... You seem to want to play a different game entirely.
As for randomness in the game... The game stretches your ability to compensate for randomness. You don`t plan for all your units to fail. However, you do plan for contingencies. If (a) fails, go to plan B. If (b) fails, go to plan C. This makes battle a much more complex thing. Bad players will just keep going with plan A even when it has no chance to succeed. Strong players will go to (b) and (c) and compensate for the bad luck. Yes, in truly equal 1v1 matchups, luck can tip things one way or the other, but that`s also why people play Bo5 and Bo7 in tourneys.
As for ppl leaving, if you play enough and find other skilled ppl, you can set up fantastic games where they won`t leave mid-game, and often set up really fun 2v2 and 3v3 games. Also, 1v1v1 is one of my favorite game types in this. The 3-way tension is so much better in a TBS than in a RTS like SC.
|
On June 02 2010 02:21 Nivra wrote:
Also, 1v1v1 is one of my favorite game types in this. The 3-way tension is so much better in a TBS than in a RTS like SC.
I really like this game, too--especially that its a free labor of love. I usually play the campaigns or tinker with my own campaigns for friends, but a 1v1v1 sounds really interesting! Next time I round up my Wesnoth buddies I'll have to try it.
|
1v1v1 has to be played with really strategically minded play. The goal is to WIN. That means it's always in your interest if you're not the lead player to gang up on the leader. If you are the leader, you have to either hide your lead, or fortify in such a way that it makes attacking you very unappealing.
It's ruined by revenge play where one person suicides in rage against another. But a good 1v1v1 is oh so fun.
|
Sorry, but you can try to defend the ability to plan for contingencies all you want, but at the end of the day, having your first turn go something like -60 EV loses you the game in the majority of cases. Even a shitty late engagement can turn multiple 95% kill chances leading to a win scenario into repeated 0-3 engagements and multiple level ups for your opponent.
I really like the game's balance in an upfront manner; the starts are varied and diverse and heavily matchup dependent but the RNG loves tossing out absolutely ridiculous results sometimes which really detracts from the game. While some people might play BO7s to nullify that downside, its still pretty fucking frustrating to play a game perfectly and lose. Its also pretty frustrating to know that you've been outplayed, then win by having, say, some skirmishers go 4-0 against their leader for 2 turns in a row while dodging pretty much everything tossed at them in the interim.
1v1v1 has to be played with really strategically minded play. The goal is to WIN. That means it's always in your interest if you're not the lead player to gang up on the leader. If you are the leader, you have to either hide your lead, or fortify in such a way that it makes attacking you very unappealing.
It's ruined by revenge play where one person suicides in rage against another. But a good 1v1v1 is oh so fun. Vast majority of people do not know how to use the status screen to check overall income and gold totals and do suicide on certain players often. The only thing you can do in situations like that is just try to get a huge xp lead on your opponent and push him out of the middle with level 2s once captain suicide lays off.
|
On June 02 2010 03:33 L wrote:Its also pretty frustrating to know that you've been outplayed, then win by having, say, some skirmishers go 4-0 against their leader for 2 turns in a row while dodging pretty much everything tossed at them in the interim.
Well, you should never keep your leader available to attack via skirmishers for 2 turns in a row. Honestly, leader risk management is just one of those things you learn to account for the more you play. That kind of balance between using your leader as a high impact unit and keeping it alive from even 1% luck chances to kill it comes with experience.
As far as frustration from very unlucky events, it's understandable. I think when you play a lot of games, the super unlucky ones are the ones that tend to stick in your mind, however. Losing a game to something that happens 5% of the time should only happen once every 20 games. Yes, it's frustrating, but a lot of how excessively frustrating it is depends on how much you over-inflate the frequency of how often it happens.
|
How frustrating it is also depends in part on how much poker you have played.
|
On May 25 2010 00:26 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 09:50 Monsen wrote:On April 12 2010 09:03 BrTarolg wrote:
This game is DEFINATELY not a luck based game
I used to play quite a fair amount of 1v1 as drakes, and a better play WILL roll you every single time
It is important to learn the common 1v1 maps very well (same importance as SC) as some strategies just wont work
Is gallifax still around? He was one of the very best players of this and i had some pretty epic games with him.
The game is extremely strategic and tactical and very, very complex. It can be an almost endless struggle to gain a good lead to push and win the game, and you often find yourself just cursing at players abusing the mechanics of their race (especially elves and dwarves) You need to realize that there is a huge difference between "luck based" and "luck factor is strong enough that it can decide games". No matter how good you are, you WILL lose (or win) games due to blatantly bad (good) luck (against equally skilled opponents, duh). That's not everyones cup of tea. That will happen in RTS games too...
A lot less often though. In RTS there is close to no hitchance involved for units. While there will always be luck involved with scouting and build orders, units fighting each other will for the most part not be influenced by luck.
|
On June 05 2010 18:26 Phrujbaz wrote:
How frustrating it is also depends in part on how much poker you have played.
Don't most poker pros claim that they always "run bad" ?
Wesnoth can be just like that.
Still an amazing project and game to be sure.
|
I've been playing for a few week mainly the campaignes. Even the AI kick my asses even though i know it's mainly my fault for doing stupid things like moving to fast to far.
I wonder where i can find some replays about some good players to see how the game is played by people who mastered the game.
|
For those complaining about luck, you can play like the pros do, "plan for all contingencies" aka only go in if you can't lose. Incidentally, it causes many games at high level to stall. I sometimes wonder how wesnoth would be like if luck was less prominent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
